A federal district court judge from the Northern District of West Virginia ruled that banning 18 to 20-year-olds from buying handguns from federal firearms licensees (FFLs) is unconstitutional.
The case, Brown v. the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), was filed in September 2022 by two West Virginia citizens named Steven Brown and Benjamin Weekley, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and West Virginia Citizens Defense League (WVCDL). Both men are under 21 years old and want to buy handguns and handgun ammunition from FFLs.
The current law prevents anyone under the age of 21 from buying handguns from FFLs. Although there is no federal law blocking 18 to 20-year-olds from buying handguns, current regulations stop anyone under 21 from going through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for a handgun.
After the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, “means end scrutiny” was ended. The government could no longer use “public safety” to add restrictions to the Second Amendment. The government can only use the original text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment to determine if a law is constitutional.
Judge Thomas S. Kleeh first addressed who is considered “the people.” He used historical references to formulate that “the people” consist of any law-abiding resident 18 and older. He stated that other areas of the U.S. Constitution named specific ages, such as the age to become President, but the founders chose not to specify an age for gun rights. He believes that if the founders wanted a higher age restriction, they would have added one in the Second Amendment.
“For example, minimum age requirements are constitutionally imposed on membership in the House of Representatives (25 years of age), the United States Senate (30 years age) and, of course, the office of President of the United States (35 years of age),” Judge kleeh stated. “Clearly, the authors of the original Constitution and the Bill of Rights contemplated age restrictions during their drafting work. The Second Amendment only refers to ‘the people.’”
The government tried to argue that the founding era was not when the Second Amendment was ratified. It claimed that the founding era was in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. For their reasoning, the government cited a three-judge panel decision from the Eleven Circuit Court of Appeals in the NRA v. Bondi case in a notice of supplemental authority.
Judge Kleeh pointed out that the plaintiffs in Bondi were granted an en banc review, meaning the entire Eleventh Circuit Court would hear the case. He also pointed out that when an en banc review is granted, the panel decision is vacated, meaning it is like it never happened. He also pointed out that even though the government had months to address the en banc review, it chose not to do so. The judge himself believes that the founding era was around 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified.
“[T]he Bondi decision was vacated on July 14, 2023, when the Eleventh Circuit granted a petition for rehearing and decided to rehear the case en banc,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the authority to which Defendants point the Court is no longer “authority.” To date, Defendants have inexplicably failed to update or withdraw their Notice of Supplemental Authority despite the fact that the Eleventh Circuit opinion—published over four months ago—vacates the Bondi panel’s opinion and dedicates significant time in their papers discounting the Fourth Circuit’s Hirschfeld opinion for the same reason.”
The judge stated that the ATF did not provide any laws from the founding era that could be used as an analogue for the 18-20-year-old handgun ban. The closest law to the founding era that the government provided was a law from 1856. Judge Kleeh said the law was too far removed from the founding era.
The government tried to argue that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue over the law. Lawyers for the ATF claimed that the plaintiffs could get their parents to buy the firearms and then gift the guns to them. The government reasoned they could still receive guns, meaning the plaintiffs could not sue over the law. The judge resoundingly rejected the government’s arguments over standing.
SAF and WVCDL were happy with the judge’s decision. SAF leadership pointed out how the government could not defend its position. It also pointed out how 18-year-olds can join the military and have adult responsibilities. An 18-year-old can join the military and be assigned a side arm and a machine gun but can not purchase a .22LR pistol under the law.
“This is a huge victory for Second Amendment rights, especially for young adults,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Biden Justice Department argued that people in this age group were not adults, which was patently ludicrous. The government simply could not defend the constitutionality of the handgun prohibition, and Judge Kleeh’s ruling makes that clear.”
“There was never any historical evidence supporting this arbitrary ban on the purchase and ownership of handguns by young adults,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we maintained all along, history goes in the opposite direction. At that age historically, young adults were considered mature enough to serve in the militia, the military and take on other responsibilities. We’re delighted with the judge’s ruling.”
The judge also did not think that a stay on his decision was warranted, so his ruling is in effect for the plaintiffs and other qualified 18-20-year-olds. The government is expected to appeal the decision and request an emergency stay.
This decision is another defeat for the ATF. This year has been one of the worst years for the ATF in the courts. The ATF has also lost court battles on bump stocks, pistol braces, forced reset triggers, frames and receivers, and various other matters.
Prohibition on Young Adults Purchasing Firearms from FFLs Ruled Unconstitutional by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Scribd
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist; he has written about firearms and interviewed people of all walks of life. Mr. Crump lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
oh the calamity of it all.. the constitution is always getting in the way of wack job lefties woke ideology. I don’t think they should be able to exercise their first amendment rights just based on the sheer stupidity of what comes out of their mouths… I propose an amendment to declare stupidity illegal.
Good one!! I like it, and if I ever believe that voting actually works, I’d vote for it too!!
The NFA IS NEXT.
I dont care if it is groucho marx ,but this crap needs to end. , bought a stevens 87 at 8 years old still have it no serial no waiting
All 23,000+ gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and none do a thing at all to deter those who are willing to rob, rape and murder. All of which are, incidentally, also crimes. Crazy, huh? Background checks are only around 40 years old, and they don’t do a damn thing to stop crime, as most who commit crime get their guns on the street or stealing ’em.
Might be “much ado about nothing”, but I really would feel better about that number if we had a credible source for it.
Rather than claim the number is not credible, research it and tell us your findings and sources so we can verify your number.
@Arizonia is satisified with the number, prove it wrong. You do have access to the Interent, too. Do the research.
Been there & done that. I haven’t been able to find a source. I’m not saying the number isn’t a credible estimate, just saying that it might be no more than that: an estimate. If anyone has more that I’ve been able to find, please share what you’ve got.
The number, either exact or approximated, doesn’t matter, it is the purpose behind those laws which is of paramount importance! If a law is passed with either an evil or a hidden intent, or both, then it is no law at all, since it is a crime being committed against us! You cannot have a law that allows or is committing a crime of any kind or size! WHERE is the valid logic in allowing that??
It doesn’t matter if it is just one, or 23 million, the number is of no relevance, due to the fact that you cannot deprive someone of their means of defense, unless you are there 24/7/365 with adequate means to keep them safe from all harm. Here’s another instance of the government goons wanting it both ways; they want to disarm us, but then claim that it’s NOT their duty to protect us afterwards! This is why the 100% corrupted legal system needs to be abolished first, because it is the exact center from which tyranny grows! It IS the… Read more »
The number does matter when we start using it in a discussion. Handgun Control Inc., the ancestor of the Brady Campaign, started citing a statistic that 13 children are killed by guns every day. Forget for a moment that guns don’t kill anybody, when the numbers were looked at, it was found that you’d have to include “children” up to 20 years of age, some of whom were gang bangers shot dead by other gang bangers and/or police. Those are not exactly what most people would consider to be “children”. We should make sure that when we cite numbers, our… Read more »
it is the number the government came up with, some of the laws are archaic like texas law that forbids carrying a concealed weapon over 6 feet long ……..I have always wondered what that law was about
Yes, my first rifle was delivered to my home. I was 13.
another time when kids had responsibilities. Had a friend in grade school who shot a six point on way to school, that was the meat his family would have for the winter…..and I know in some parts of the country this type of necessity still exists
If Trump does make it back into the presidency he will likely face a democrat legislature insuring government gridlock again. Never seems to work out does it?
Our national cemeteries are filled with 18 year Olds that gave their measure of dedication to the United States.
I never understood using someone to defend this country who couldn’t buy a gun, or even buy a drink in a bar. I’ve always thought joining the military should automatically bestow all rights of full adulthood. If you can die for your country, you’ve already made the most adult decision you’ll ever make.
I get what you’re trying to say there, but ALL wars are bankster’s wars, so no one is dying for their country since the American Revolution, they are dying on the altar of Mammon and political power.
that is what the un civil war was about, slavery was secondary
another one bites the dust. the anti’s are losing case by case, which is a very good thing. our rights are being restored to where they should be, bit by bit.
That’s the way it gets done but it takes a lot of money. Don’t forget to give. Every dollar helps. One of my financial advisors suggested I give now and enjoy the results instead of leaving it after my death. Sound advice.
No, it doesn’t! It doesn’t require even one penny! All it really takes, is for enough people to spread the truth about the legal system around and show how to circumvent the criminal cabal! All it takes, is just a few minutes of your time each day to share the knowledge of how to cut the roots of the tree of evil! Pretty soon, it will fall over and die! If any new shoots appear out of the ground level root, just burn it in the ground if you can’t dig it up!!
Bit by bit is how they were stolen from us, but we can regain ALL of them instantly and without even one drop of blood being spilled or one hair on anyone’s head being injured! If only just 4% of the people who get dragged into the legal system demanded to see their written guarantee of actually getting a fair trial, and stuck to it, the courtrooms would all shut down because they would be overwhelmed and denied their profits!!
Read my paper about the UNIVERSAL Get Out Of Jail For Free Card! and you will see it for yourself!
What is never mentioned is the 26th amendment which was specifically addressing the conscription of 18 year olds into the military so they could bear arms. this was done during the height of the anti draft movement to try to make the draft more legitimate. .
I’m good with tying it to the age to vote. If you don’t want 18-20 year olds to buy guns, raise the voting age too. If you want 16 year olds to vote, lower the age to buy guns to the same.
Which of the five definitions of United States is being used there? Up to the sixth edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, they listed only three of them, and now, in the 7th Edition and above, they leave the term out completely! Gee, I wonder why that is?? Is someone trying to keep us ignorant of the facts and from figuring out the scam of the legal system? Well, that didn’t stop little ole me!!
Not the voting age, but the selective service age. If you can draft my @$$ and arm me, I should be able to arm myself.
age to buy guns was never tied to voting, in 1962 could buy a rifle in florida under 16 but not a pistol….think…. I have a m14 I bought at a FW woolworths no hoops tax stamp was paid at the register!
outstanding decision from the judge! the Founding Era wasn’t until the 14th amendment was passed? someone take away the atf attorneys crack pipes!
IiberaIs wiII simpIy ignore the ruIing. lt’s what they do.
Most everyone within the firearms community is overjoyed with these decisions from the SCOTUS to lower courts, myself included. However, this is setting a precarious precedence. We are relying too heavily solely upon on the courts to right previous wrongs. On the heels of these decisions we should be demanding legislation be passed to codify these decisions in law, adding an additional layer of protection against political whim. We can NOT rely entirely upon on the judicial branch to ensure that the rights of the people are protected. These decisions need to be enshrined within the legislation as well, otherwise… Read more »
And I implore you to stop using the made up term or word of art “firearm” and just say what we always said before the GCA in 1968, which is gun! Even just a small screw or spring that is used in a gun, can be construed as being a “firearm” in the completely corrupted and criminal legal system! Did you know that? Well now you do, as well as others reading this!
Ideally, the right would extend to 16 year-olds, who I believe were regularly found as combatants in AR-I and CW-I. Still, getting gun rights restored to 18-20 year olds is great! I believe Vermont’s original Constitutional Carry law allowed anyone 16 or older to carry openly or concealed. I never heard of a youth gun crisis in Vermont, yet idiot legislators there decided a few years ago to raise that age to 18.
I have a question. Is this court decision just in effect around Virginia, or is it nationwide until SCOTUS hears it?
Just based on what we read about other decisions and Kleeh not specifically saying it applies nation wide, it applies only to the 4th Circuit which encompasses the Virginia’s, the Carolina’s and Maryland. When we get a different decision elsewhere we will have a circuit split and it will be up to the Supremes to sort it out. I’m not the lawyer in the family but I expect one of the youtube members of the BAR will give a definitive answer.
By “the Supremes” I hope that you meant Diana Ross’ back up singers, because if you really meant the USSC/SCOTUS, they have already admitted to their level of incompetence, irrelevance and immateriality last year, when they overturned Roe v. Wade, and did it unanimously and admitted that an egregious mistake had been made back in 1973! So we’re supposed to just accept the “Sorry, our bad there!” and just leave it at that? What makes the current USSC/SCOTUS any different than the one that we had in 1973? The players may be different, but the uniforms and rules are still… Read more »
all SCOTUS did was remove federal protection and allow individual states to regulate abortions, i.e. 10 Amendment.
What Orion says is right. I think the decision is why we did not have the red tide as predicted and that the democraps are going to use this as part of their reasons to vote against republicans. It has already shown that it will work.
IMO they should have left it alone. Its their body so it should be their choice because in the end, I am not the one to judge where they go when they die.
I am against abortion for convenience. Let people adopt.
I am not sure of the answer to your question, but I can’t help but wonder if the gun carry age isn’t somehow tied to the voting age and if that wasn’t done so people couldn’t say that if you are responsible enough to carry a gun at that age, you are responsible enough to vote!
IMO
and in kommiefornia I felt if I could die for my country at 18 that I should be able to drive a car, buy a gun, drink and vote.
I wondered about that too, Musicman!
So the Government said the parents could purchase the pistols and then gift them to their kids, isn’t that a straw purchase which is a felony?
And I’m STILL waiting for someone to tell me as to why any man or woman needs to obey the whims, caprices and dictates of known criminals, is it just because they are wearing a black robe or a government provided uniform and badge? If they are acting in bad faith, which all of them are, then there can’t be any “qualified immunity”! Qualified immunity is a scam for two reasons at the least. One, they already know well beforehand that what they are doing is wrong, because even someone of average intelligence can see it as plain as day!… Read more »
I believe the good congress men and women tried to do just that when they attempted to impeach biden but the swamp rat RINO’s stopped it. I pray that people get their heads on straight and vote the trash out of congress so we can get the ball rolling in the proper direction again. If not, NWO here we come and uncle joe will have temporarily won.